Saturday, June 19, 2004

Some high weirdness in two articles on the 9-11 commission in the Washington Post:

In the first article, dated June 17 by Dan Eggen and William Branigin, NORAD Commander Air Force Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart tells the 9-11 commission that had the Federal Aviation Administration conveyed word of the hijackings as soon it knew of them, "yes, we could shoot down the airplanes." In the second, dated June 18 by Dana Milbank (both articles are also reprinted here), the shoot-down order given by Cheney was never passed on to the Langley pilots, because, as the commission reported: "Both the mission commander and the weapons director indicated they did not pass the order to fighters circling Washington and New York City because they were unsure how the pilots would, or should, proceed with this guidance." This is consistent with Eberhart's statement if we assume that the pilots did not need such orders, and would in fact would have been confused by them, because they already had the authority to shoot. All the focus on Cheney's orders seems to be simply a way to make Cheney look heroic, as his orders were completely unnecessary. As such orders were unnecessary, apologists for the Official Story can't rely on the delay in Cheney's orders reaching the pilots to explain why no defensive action was taken. Someone still has to explain why NORAD acted as if it was under a standdown order.

In the second article, it is clear that Cheney lied to the commission, and to Rumsfeld at the time he gave the order, when he told them he had Bush's authorization for the shoot-down order. He talked to Bush after he gave the order.

From the second article:

"Unknown to Cheney or Bush, however, by 10:45 other fighter jets would be circling Washington, and these had clear authority to shoot down planes, the commission determined. They were sent from Andrews Air Force Base by the commander of the 113th Wing of the Air National Guard, in consultation with the Secret Service, which relayed instructions that an agent said were from Cheney.

That arrangement was 'outside the military chain of command,' according to the commission report. Bush and Cheney told the commission they were unaware that fighters had been scrambled from Andrews."

When impolite critics of the Official Story of 9-11 asked the rather obvious question of why planes were not scrambled from the closest possible base at Andrews, they were condescendingly told that they lacked a proper understanding of how air defense worked, and that it was absolutely impossible for jets at Andrews to be used. If jets could in fact be scrambled from Andrews and were in the air over Washington at 10:45, why couldn't they have been in the air at, say, 9:30? As an aside, if it was 'outside the military chain of command', and Bush and Cheney were unaware of it, just what chain of command was it under?

A long time ago I noted that the trick used to seem to be doing something while actually doing nothing was to send the Langley planes to New York, long after the horse had escaped from that barn and there were already lots of other American protective jets circling, and at a time when radar showed the obvious threat was to Washington. In order to get around this problem, they are now arguing that procedures meant that the jets had to head out to sea. I don't know how this is going to explain why they had to continue to New York City when the obvious imminent threat at the time was to the seat of government in Washington. Claiming that they were chasing a 'phantom aircraft' in New York City does not explain why they left Washington completely unprotected at a time they knew it was under imminent risk of attack and had aircraft in the air that could have responded. I suppose it is at least some progress that someone believes that this anomaly needs to be explained.

I lack the energy to get involved in examining in detail the lies of the 9-11 commission. It looks as if it is going to be as hopeless a cover-up as we all thought it would be.